![]() | This article has multiple issues. Please help
improve it or discuss these issues on the
talk page. (
Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
In U.S. politics, a primary challenge is when an incumbent holding elective office is challenged by a member of their own political party in a primary election. Such events, known informally as "being primaried," are noteworthy and not frequent in the United States, as traditionally political parties support incumbents, both for party unity and to minimize the possibility of losing the seat to an opposing party. In addition, officeholders are frequently seen as de facto leaders of their party, eligible to establish policy and administer affairs as they see fit. A primary challenge thus interferes with this "spoil of office," and is largely discouraged. Though typically used to describe challenges to elected officials, the term is also applied to officeholders such as appointed U.S. senators. [1]
In jurisdictions predominantly under the political control of a single political party, or where the overwhelming majority of registered voters (in jurisdictions that require party registration) belong to a single party (a " safe seat"), there is likely to be less fear of opposing parties gaining sufficient support to mount a credible challenge. In such an area, particularly those that have been gerrymandered, members of the party feel more at ease to challenge current officeholders, because no loss of the seat is expected.
Primary elections in the United States generally draw a very low voter turnout. In addition, only a small portion of the public may be educated on the issue stances of all primary candidates, as primary elections typically use little or no mass media advertising. Party activists, ideologues, and local party leaders may constitute an unusually high number of, or exert disproportionate levels of influence on, those who actually vote.
This situation provides opportunities for organizations focused on a single issue, such as gun control, taxation, or abortion. Such organizations may be able to convince their supporters to endure the difficulty of voting, while other eligible voters may not want to take the trouble for a "minor election."
Since the advent of the modern primary election system in 1972, an incumbent president has never been defeated by a primary challenger, though every president who faced a strong primary challenge went on to be defeated in the general election. [2] [3]
Sabato's Crystal Ball tabulated that from 1946 to 2018, only 4% of incumbent U.S. senators running in primaries were unseated by challengers. This figure includes incumbents running unopposed or against paper candidates, meaning credible primary challengers have a higher rate of success. [8]
From 1946 to 2018, only 1.6% of incumbent representatives running in primaries were defeated by challengers. This percentage also includes incumbents running against other incumbents because of House seats being eliminated by reapportioning, which are typically not referred to as primary challenges; if reapportioning years are excluded less than 1% of incumbents are defeated. This also includes incumbents running unopposed or against paper candidates, meaning credible primary challengers have a higher rate of success. [17]
As of 2018, 14% of incumbent governors running in contested primaries were defeated by challengers. [22]
![]() | This article has multiple issues. Please help
improve it or discuss these issues on the
talk page. (
Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
In U.S. politics, a primary challenge is when an incumbent holding elective office is challenged by a member of their own political party in a primary election. Such events, known informally as "being primaried," are noteworthy and not frequent in the United States, as traditionally political parties support incumbents, both for party unity and to minimize the possibility of losing the seat to an opposing party. In addition, officeholders are frequently seen as de facto leaders of their party, eligible to establish policy and administer affairs as they see fit. A primary challenge thus interferes with this "spoil of office," and is largely discouraged. Though typically used to describe challenges to elected officials, the term is also applied to officeholders such as appointed U.S. senators. [1]
In jurisdictions predominantly under the political control of a single political party, or where the overwhelming majority of registered voters (in jurisdictions that require party registration) belong to a single party (a " safe seat"), there is likely to be less fear of opposing parties gaining sufficient support to mount a credible challenge. In such an area, particularly those that have been gerrymandered, members of the party feel more at ease to challenge current officeholders, because no loss of the seat is expected.
Primary elections in the United States generally draw a very low voter turnout. In addition, only a small portion of the public may be educated on the issue stances of all primary candidates, as primary elections typically use little or no mass media advertising. Party activists, ideologues, and local party leaders may constitute an unusually high number of, or exert disproportionate levels of influence on, those who actually vote.
This situation provides opportunities for organizations focused on a single issue, such as gun control, taxation, or abortion. Such organizations may be able to convince their supporters to endure the difficulty of voting, while other eligible voters may not want to take the trouble for a "minor election."
Since the advent of the modern primary election system in 1972, an incumbent president has never been defeated by a primary challenger, though every president who faced a strong primary challenge went on to be defeated in the general election. [2] [3]
Sabato's Crystal Ball tabulated that from 1946 to 2018, only 4% of incumbent U.S. senators running in primaries were unseated by challengers. This figure includes incumbents running unopposed or against paper candidates, meaning credible primary challengers have a higher rate of success. [8]
From 1946 to 2018, only 1.6% of incumbent representatives running in primaries were defeated by challengers. This percentage also includes incumbents running against other incumbents because of House seats being eliminated by reapportioning, which are typically not referred to as primary challenges; if reapportioning years are excluded less than 1% of incumbents are defeated. This also includes incumbents running unopposed or against paper candidates, meaning credible primary challengers have a higher rate of success. [17]
As of 2018, 14% of incumbent governors running in contested primaries were defeated by challengers. [22]